There was a thread in the Pit along the lines of "who in UG is on your shit list"

i was a little disappointed when I skimmed through and didn't see a post from you with my name in it.

i don't read the pit often at all actually

plus, you can always find comfort knowing that you're just my least favorite person in MT right now. if guitarmunky was around you'd be a lot better off, but i mean, i have to close my browser if i try to read something in GT or the bass forums. at least i skim your posts

plus you can usually tell when i'm drunk posting cause it's always ended in incoherent rambling @you, it's not like you have to try and decipher it

I would argue that stating a key in modal terms is actually acceptable when talking about modern music. You can hear any number of late 20th century classical, jazz, and pop/rock music that is really built on a modal tonal center rather than a harmonic progression. Surely you are aware of such innovative musical movements as Minimalism, Modal Jazz, and the litany of rock artists who use modality very frequently - The Dead, Phish, Tool, anything "drone". That's not to mention the heavy influence of Indian Music, which is modal, on the Western tradition.

Ye Olde Modes lived in a system that loved diatonic-ness. There was only one accidental for key signatures (Bb), and you only used accidentals melodically to avoid voice leading problems. That system didn't recognize the idea of E Major; if you wrote music with E as tonic, it was in the Phrygian Mode. Only D had two modes, because D minor is a very special key.

Key and mode were one-in-the-same maybe 400 years ago, but since the advent of modern modal music, it makes perfect sense to label your key as modal when it's largely absent of actual harmonic progression.

I would argue that stating a key in modal terms is actually acceptable when talking about modern music. You can hear any number of late 20th century classical, jazz, and pop/rock music that is really built on a modal tonal center rather than a harmonic progression. Surely you are aware of such innovative musical movements as Minimalism, Modal Jazz, and the litany of rock artists who use modality very frequently - The Dead, Phish, Tool, anything "drone". That's not to mention the heavy influence of Indian Music, which is modal, on the Western tradition.

Ye Olde Modes lived in a system that loved diatonic-ness. There was only one accidental for key signatures (Bb), and you only used accidentals melodically to avoid voice leading problems. That system didn't recognize the idea of E Major; if you wrote music with E as tonic, it was in the Phrygian Mode. Only D had two modes, because D minor is a very special key.

Key and mode were one-in-the-same maybe 400 years ago, but since the advent of modern modal music, it makes perfect sense to label your key as modal when it's largely absent of actual harmonic progression.

this is actually a really good argument (possibly even the best one i have ever seen on this topic), but the main flaw is that it assumes that keys are not able to exist without an actual harmonic progression, which is simply not true.

ockham's razor -- why confuse things further and bring in modes at all, when a key can handle anything you throw at it so long as it has a tonal center?

Key and mode were one-in-the-same maybe 400 years ago, but since the advent of modern modal music, it makes perfect sense to label your key as modal when it's largely absent of actual harmonic progression.

Sure it makes sense, but it's unnecessary. Looking at it that way is no more intuitive than just thinking of the functions of accidentals in a major or minor key.

You're saying that modes are diatonic by nature with a given tonal center. Is that not almost exactly what a key is? Sure a key isn't necessarily diatonic, but the realm of tonal harmony is built off of the diatonic scale with the addition of any possible accidentals.

In other words, the scope of the practical use of modes is entirely covered by the scope of keys. Anything you do with modes can be just as easily described using tonal nomenclature, so why even bother with modes?

I'm not arguing against the notion that "stating a key in modal terms is actually acceptable." It can be a good way to quickly describe a set of notes. However, I'm arguing that it's an unnecessary, outdated system. The fact is, modes are hardly taught in theory classes and when they are taught, they're rarely taught well. It's a huge tripping point for many beginners who hear some Greek names and think they've found the holy grail of music which will solve their lack of harmonic/melodic vocabulary. Not only is it a false notion, but most of the time they fail to learn any respectable application for them other than "play these notes over some chords and it won't sound so stereotypically major or minor." Good resources for learning modes are few and far between, or at least compared to the literature for tonal harmony.

__________________
Only play what you hear. If you donít hear anything, donít play anything.
-Chick Corea

this is actually a really good argument (possibly even the best one i have ever seen on this topic), but the main flaw is that it assumes that keys are not able to exist without an actual harmonic progression, which is simply not true.

ockham's razor -- why confuse things further and bring in modes at all, when a key can handle anything you throw at it so long as it has a tonal center?

The important distinction is static vs progressive harmony. In the modern context, I'd consider Mode a subset of Key. There is always a tonic (atonal stuff excluded), modality vs tonality is simply a matter of treatment.

I think there's also an appreciable difference in terms of approach when something is modal vs functionally harmonic. You don't see chords like Am/D* in "regular" music because that arrangement of notes serves an entirely different purpose as part of a harmonic progression, whereas it makes perfect sense if you're playing a Dorian modal piece.

As far as I can tell, though, the jury is still out on how you'd actually express this in writing - would you use a modal key signature? tonal key signature with accidentals? No key signature with accidentals?

"Chameleon" is a modal tune, Bb dorian, but uses two flats for the key signature, which establishes tonic, but not harmony.

And yes, modes ARE definitely overvalued by amateur guitarists. I've never understood why. They are an analytical tool first and foremast, as is most Theory. I'd still suggest people learn them along with their regular diatonic scales because there is so much modal music out there you want to have the tools ready when you see appropriate chord progressions. The fatal flaw for most people learning modes is they forget that it's a fundamentally harmonic concept, not melodic. They do no good if you don't recognize what musical contexts call for modal treatment.

I'm not really disagreeing though. I do see your point about how quartal harmony lends itself better to modality because it lacks the same kind of tonal function that tertian harmony has. Another example would be the minor 11 voicing that So What uses. The stacked fourths make the root of the chord somewhat ambiguous.

__________________
Only play what you hear. If you donít hear anything, donít play anything.
-Chick Corea

Here's a basic way I look at modes. They're useless. Sure, they sound cool. But I'd rather use accidentals to imply a "modal sound" and still have the freedom that tonal music gives. Being limited to only playing 7 notes is...well, limiting. I'd rather have the freedom to play any and all notes, as long as it serves the song.
For instance, I have a song which heavily implies the mixolydian mode, but it's tonal. (It's in the key of Emajor). I really emphasize the flatted 5th/sharped 4th, while also playing (but not really emphasizing) the perfect 5th at times.

Point is, why bother with modes when tonal music gives a lot more freedom?

Guitar players really need to stop acting likes modes are the holy grail and just realize that things like good composition, ear training, etc. are much more important.

plus, you can always find comfort knowing that you're just my least favorite person in MT right now. if guitarmunky was around you'd be a lot better off, but i mean, i have to close my browser if i try to read something in GT or the bass forums. at least i skim your posts

plus you can usually tell when i'm drunk posting cause it's always ended in incoherent rambling @you, it's not like you have to try and decipher it

It doesnt bother me. Youd have to be pretty pathetic to be upset if someone on the internet liked targeting you for being full of shit. Having said that some people are pretty sensitve so from my point of view I guess it's better me than someone else. I find it entertaining. Besides that - I am full of shit most of the time.

Key and mode were one-in-the-same maybe 400 years ago, but since the advent of modern modal music, it makes perfect sense to label your key as modal when it's largely absent of actual harmonic progression.

I tried to float this by with a Patty Smith song "Banga". It uses one chord, D major. So I said, "this must be in D Ionian. Well, we had some fun with that. Not a whole lot mind you, just a couple of couple of pages really.